We gotta get this guy a lazyboy or maybe a couch
This one is in a brand new housing development in Bayview Hunters Point
You can find Spank salon right next to the Caning Place, only in Alameda, California
If you want to see four more years of this, then vote for
Randy Shaw Jane Kim for District 6 Supervisor in San Francisco
New sign in the doorway of Marinellos School of Beauty in Mid Market, San Francisco, where all this takes place
Here s the quote
I sat through the entire BOS meeting armed with my “tedious” public comment. Sam-whoever-he-am wants my voice silenced but probably only on this issue that his side won. On the ones his side loses, he likely wants full throated public comment. Witness his nonstop blather on 48 Hills.
This decision by the 11 dwarves may be a watershed for San Francisco. It is clearly a win for the self-interest at the expense of community. It’s a win for the ownership class—which includes the rent control master tenant class—against the property-less free spirits. It’s the plodding ants crushing the flighty grasshoppers. It’s those that gots winning against those that ain’ts.
It’s the tech corps with their PR astroturf operators trouncing the bumbling, disorganized progressives. The astroturf at the hearing—by my observation about 95% white and upper middle class—seemed to be exclusively Airbnb property owners. One or two lone progressives (was that Fernando in the hat in the front row?) booed and clapped like hooligans, especially when Campos made his impassioned speech calling out the unfairness of Airbnb nonpayment of taxes.
But the nice-whites with their identical, corporate-sponsored “HomeSharing” stickers over hearts throbbing in unison for Chiu outnumbered the progressives at least 10-1. They did the finger wiggle-waggle in silent, gleeful support, the wiggle oddly a relic of Occupy, corporations absorbing and repurposing the social inventions of the grassroots.
The political madness that is San Francisco is fascinating. But there is tragedy beneath the surface, the age old calamity of the displacement of peoples. San Francisco is unique not because of its location, its climate, its architecture or even its history. It’s unique because it has long been the home of weirdos, social adventurers, radical artists and political pioneers. These are the people that lost big yesterday.
Progressive politics in SF may be over—Airbnb may prove the bellwether. The forces of the Organized Money Power have triumphed both from within—in the decades of real estate appreciation that have enriched even progressives—and from without in the invasion of the techie corporatists. The biggest tragedy—IMHO—is that the socio-economic stratification Campos tries in vain to make a campaign issue has been approved by the supes and will roar forward, emptying out what’s left of the middle in SF and destroying social space for the true creatives.
The progressives will hold turf for a while. Randy Shaw got part of what he wanted in Jane Kim’s Tenderloin, the private right to sue to preserve his bailiwick of SROs. So these particular progs will hold onto their colonized poor, to the addicts, the mentally ill, the parolees that are the base of their power in the TL. But the Tenderloin—I live in an SRO—is on the chopping block. Pieces of it are being cut off quietly by the Money Power.
In the Mission the progressives will fight a rear guard action for a season. Local 2 lost big. Airbnb will put their unionized Latino ladies out of work. And of course, Campos is the biggest loser and thus the radical left Latino and gay activist sensibility he represents.
If Campos cannot counter the Airbnb victory laps Chiu will take on his way to the assembly race, Chiu may win handily. The transactional political mechanic; the assembler of complex middle way legislation; the smooth legislative operator (Chiu) may crush the passionate “man-of-the-people”; immigrant-turned-Harvard-lawyer; Milk-Ammiano gay activist (Campos.)
Campos’ problem—from my perspective—is the problem of the entrenched, reactionary progressive movement in SF. Its moral politics is narrowly focused and increasingly ineffective. I’m all for moral politics, but if the glasses through which you see the black hats and the white hats, the victims and oppressors are too narrow, you become absurd.
And then the dwarves rise to the top, like Avalos, Mar and before them Mirkirimi, Daly and Dufty. And lone rangers like Campos—guys who are genuinely passionate—are left to flounder when they blast away invoking the Fair Share meme on Airbnb taxes, with a bit of hooligan clapping from Fernando and Calvin in the peanut gallery.
Is there any hope for the future of progressive politics in SF? I’m putting my money on Jane Kim.
As four of the eleven dwarves offered up transactional, supportive amendments yesterday (Breed, Weiner, Farrell, Cohen) to curry favor with boss man Chiu and as three of the eleven dwarves offered poison pill amendments (Mar, Avalos, Yee) that were going nowhere, only Jane Kim seemed to have independence. Her amendment was—admittedly—to carry water for Randy Shaw who has been pounding his private interest to sue in his blog. But Kim seemed the canny, autonomous insider.
First, Kim effectively bitch-slapped Weiner on his preposterous litigator-at-the-dock BS re the “extremity” of her amendment. Weiner was left whimpering by Kim’s reference to hard data re frivolous lawsuits and the use of this meme by the Koch Bros. But she also admitted that she’d watered down her non-profit-right-to-sue amendment in consultation with the Mayor’s office.
This raises the question: is Kim the more effective champion of the left-progressive moral vision than Campos? Jane Kim doesn’t wear her morality on her sleeve. She doesn’t give stump speeches to the other supes, antagonizing them. But she brings home the bacon to Randy, which Campos does not.
San Francisco needs a revitalized progressive movement. After decades of pitched battles with the Money Power— a power which like Sauron never, ever sleeps—SF needs not just new faces. It desperately needs a larger, wider progressive left vision. Absent that—and absent a new libertarian or conservative vision from the other side of the moral debate that divides us all— Onward Dwarves!
Here’s a few things you should know about this ‘private right to action’ addendum and it is true that it’s very similar to the San Francisco Hotel Demolition and Conversion Ordinance passed in 1980 and the private right to sue added in 1990
While it says any private party can sue for damages, only one non profit has actually ever used it and pursued hotel owners, and that is Randy Shaw and Tenderloin Housing Clinic
For weeks, Wiener and Chiu seemed unable to distinguish between a “drive-by” ADA lawsuit and the type of cases routinely brought under California’s Private Attorney General Statute, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5. They also disregarded the fact that no problem with frivolous lawsuits has occurred since the city’s Hotel Conversion Ordinance gave nonprofits the right to sue nearly 25 years ago.
It’s not Weiner that’s confused, this is Randy Shaw trying to confuse the public on his own blog (which is funded by proceeds from these very same lawsuits). This isn’t about ADA (disability access lawsuits) or Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5 (recovery of attorneys fees which is statewide and involves many different types of lawsuits)
This is about San Francisco’s special provision San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 41A, which is never mentioned in Randy Shaws blog post. Specifically section D which allows for penalties. Also posted on Socketsite two years ago when Chiu first introduced the AirBnB legistlation
(d) Civil Action. Following the filing of a complaint and the determination of a violation by the Director through an administrative review hearing as set forth in this Chapter 41A any interested party may institute proceedings for injunctive and monetary relief. In addition, the owner or business entity may be liable for civil penalties of not more than $1,000 per day for the period of the unlawful rental. If the City or the interested party is the prevailing party, the City or the interested party shall be entitled to the costs of enforcing this Chapter, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, up to the amount of the monetary award, pursuant to an order of the Court. Any monetary award obtained by the City and County of San Francisco in such a civil action shall be deposited in the Mayor’s Office of Housing, Housing Affordability Fund less the reasonable costs incurred by the City and County of San Francisco in pursuing the civil action.
In this same above quote Randy Shaw claims there were no reports of any frivolous lawsuit activity. This is not what the owners and neighbors of the Ocean Beach Motel were saying. That was at best described as Randy Shaw abusing this very same ‘private right to action’ clause, which Tenderloin Housing Clinic lost, in court. Also described as a bully
The most recent lawsuits filed by Tenderloin Housing Clinic actually describes tourists as a public nuisance, this based in a city where tourism is the #1 industry
The original law passed in 1990 that allowed Tenderloin Housing Clinic to seek monetary damages, which provides monetary incentive for Randy Shaw to keep suing, was previously restricted to larger SRO hotel owners. But if this new AirBnB addendum passes, it will no longer be large hotel owners, but small apartment/house owners with 3 units or more. This will open up thousands of new possibilities for Tenderloin Housing Clinic to cash in which is why Randy Shaw is making a big deal about it on Beyondchron
The problem is because the new lawsuit targets will be much smaller, there will likely be an increase in bankruptcies and individuals losing their own homes because they rented on AirBnB and possibly violated one of the provisions. The potential for abuse will be much higher because any neighbor who doesn’t like what another neighbor is doing on AirBnB can simply call Randy Shaw and he’ll take it from there, because now there’s dollar signs dangling
Time will tell how it plays out, but I’m predicting political backlash once the lawsuits get going because this will involve much more everyday people than before
It’s no secret that Randy Shaw and his staff have been big supporters of the Jane Kim in the 2010 campaign. The 2010 Jane Kim campaign was also the subject of a ethics commission probe and was also caught on camera in 2010 campaigning inside this very same Tenderloin Housing Clinic building
In case you think the SRO vote is insignificant, this same article claims Jane Kim won (the SRO vote) over Debra Walker in 2010 by only 140 votes and the SRO vote is the reason Chris Daly got re-elected in 2006
As a result of Randy Shaw allowing Jane Kim to campaign inside his city funded non profit buildings, Randy Shaw must now allow all other District 6 candidates to campaign in all 16 of his master leased SRO’s. Randy Shaw can get into some serious trouble now if he doesn’t allow any other candidate to enter any of his buildings
September 27, 2014, 11:42am – Jane Kim flyers being distributed at the Seneca Hotel, one of Randy Shaws master leased SRO’s in Mid Market, San Francisco. Bonus: One of Randy Shaws own clients calling the team “you’re all backed by the mob”, which would mean his own clients calling Shaw the mob
This must be what mayor Ed Lee refers to as the total resurgence of Mid Market
Marinello’s School of Beauty students must have been wondering why this wasn’t in the brochure
Mid Market, San Francisco. Now with 10% more revitalization, free!
Tenderloin Housing Clinic – Safe Clean Affordable Housing